uwot jackles?

[uwot]

tell me please uwot as matter of interest.what do you think the status of an observers consciousness is as regs moving in relativity as regs c

Well, jackles, that a difficult one to answer. I might need some clarity on what exactly you mean. But as a first stab, I think it is probably the case that consciousness is a product of all the toing and froing inside your head and is therefore subject to the same dilation as any other physical system. In other words, it doesn't matter how fast you are going, everything in your inertial frame seems normal. It's all relative.

[jackles]

answer to uwot.hum.
from a book call science matters
reference frames
when you sit in a chair at home, you observe the world from a FRAME OF REFERANCE that is firmly attacted ti solid earth.If you ride by in a car or plane or spaceship ,on the other hand,you observe the world from a frame of reference that is moving with respect to the earth.in either case you are an observer in the relative sence.in either reference frame you could set up a physics lab and perform experiments.in either frame of reference you could describe physical phenomena and deduce the laws of nature.
no matter what your reference frame ,you can think of yourself as being stationary while every other observer is moving.this view may not seem obvious.when you drive you probably dont think of your car as stationary while the countryside whizzes past.most of us are accustomed to think of the earth as the right' frame of reference, and we unconsciously put ourselves into earthbound frame of reference whether we are moving or not.But have you ever, while sitting in an airplane being pushed back from a gate or a bus backing out of a station, thought just for an instant that the plane or bus next to you was moving forward.in that moment before your consious mind took over and reimposed its prejudice, you were a true relativistic observer.your frame of reference was your own fixed center of the universe,and evertthing was moving around you.

[uwot]

The thing about reference frames is that we take them completely for granted. If we drop something we know perfectly well that it will fall at our feet; that's true if we are at home, on a train going 100mph, or a plane going 500mph; the law of physics that says things fall straight downwards is true no matter how fast you are going; it is true in any reference frame. That's what Galileo worked out. He realised that if you were on a ship without windows, that was smoothly gliding across the water, you would have no way of knowing that you were moving; it's called the principle of relativity. Before Galileo, people believed that the Earth was stationary in the centre of the universe and that everything revolved around us. One of the main arguments against Copernicus was that if the Earth was moving, then if you dropped something, because the Earth was moving, it would not fall at your feet, but as far away as the Earth had moved in the time the thing was falling.
Before Einstein, scientists thought there was a way to tell if you were moving. James Clarke Maxwell had show that light travels at a fixed speed, the famous constant c (from celeritas, the Latin for speed). Basically, if you were moving towards a source of light, the light should be moving faster relative to you, but very careful experiments, most famously Michelson-Morley couldn't find any difference in speed, no matter how or in which direction they set up the equipment.
Einstein liked to work things out with thought experiments; he wondered what would happen if you could travel at the speed of light. If you could hold a mirror in front of you, the image should disappear; the reason being that the light from your face cannot reach the mirror to be reflected. But that would mean the laws of physics were not the same in any reference frame; so he decided to invent a way that would make sure they were, which he developed into Special Relativity.
It is true that in any reference frame we can treat the rest of the universe as if we were stationary and it was moving. So in that respect, our consciousness can be considered an unmoving locality. The fact is though that we are moving. And so is everything else.

[jackles]

uwot you say the fact is we are moving.the fact is our brains are moving but our consciousness is not moving.this is what gives the effect that you(consciousness) is not moving as the measurer of c.it proves the brain is not responsible for consciousness as in some how manufacturing it individualy to give the exact same effects with the event that a sourced consciouness would at quantum level.

[uwot]

uwot you say the fact is we are moving.the fact is our brains are moving but our consciousness is not moving.

I really don't understand what you mean. To me it seems that my consciousness is, at least, very closely connected to my brain. Wherever my brain is, that's where I find my consciousness. In that respect, my consciousness moves as much as my brain.

this is what gives the effect that you(consciousness) is not moving as the measurer of c.

c is much too fast for our consciousness to measure directly. It is only by looking at equipment that is sensitive enough that we can judge the speed of light. We do that with our eyes, and if our consciousness was somewhere else, we'd never know.

it proves the brain is not responsible for consciousness as in some how manufacturing it individualy

I'm not an expert on consciousness, my understanding of it is hardly better than David Hume's. He was an 18th century Scottish philosopher. I can't remember the exact words, but the point he made was that whenever he thought about what his consciousness was, he couldn't think of anything that wasn't associated with having a brain.

to give the exact same effects with the event that a sourced consciouness would at quantum level.

Can you put this another way? I don't understand it.

[jackles]

ill try uwot.ill get back to you.

[jackles]

ok uwot .imagine you are riding in a bumper car at the funfair.we take the bumper car and you and the electric pick up arm as being your brain.and we take the rink ceiling that the pickup arm gets it electric supply from as your consciousness.we switch the b car lights on we already no c so we dont need to measure it .so we automaticaly become stationary to c when we put the lights on.the rink ceiling represents your stationary consciousness .the bumper car and you represent your brain.the place where the pickup are touches the rink ceiling represents the relative mover which is your consciousness.thats an analergy in fact the rink ceiling would be infinite with no size if it was consciousness .so the rink ceiling represents infinity..regs jackls

[uwot]

It's a good analogy, jackles; I think I can see what you mean. It's actually a bit like what Plato thought. He thought that our soul is eternal and as such, it has had plenty of time to learn pretty well everything there is to know. When we are born, our soul gets put into our body, the bumper car if you like, and it 'forgets'. The path we trace through life, or the rink, determines what we pick up from the 'ceiling'.
I have no idea whether that's what actually happens, but there is a simpler explanation, I think: namely that we create our 'consciousness' as we bump into things. It goes back to Hume; I can't think of anything about my consciousness that I have to say isn't part of being a brain stumbling about a very confusing universe.

[jackles]

yes thats right uwot.but the cosciousness part is nonlocal so it never moved .the but the local bumper car ride was an a relative illusion so it seemed to move.you are the mover.

[Arising_uk]

... we take the bumper car and you and the electric pick up arm as being your brain. ...

Just checking but did you mean 'we take the bumper car as you ...'?

[jackles]

yeah that would be the moving part .the brain.the rink ceiling how ever represents unmoving consciousness.which would be limitless and nonlocal.so the brain is represented by every thing thats moving.and the rink ceiling represents the unmoving and there for limitless consciousness that the event happens in.

[uwot]

yes thats right uwot.but the cosciousness part is nonlocal so it never moved .the but the local bumper car ride was an a relative illusion so it seemed to move.you are the mover.

So is this idealism? Bishop Berkeley made the point that if the only thing you can be sure exist are sensations, is there any need to posit a material world? It's not as silly as it seems, although it is a bit silly. Physicists can quite happily, and fantastically successfully, manipulate energy and matter without any notion of what they are made of.
Back to your idea, jackles: is there any need to have a bumper car? Could we not just be paths through 'consciousness', our own, or perhaps 'gods', a bit like Berkeley believed?

[jackles]

yes paths through the event .with consciousness there as a constant.then one day you realise that its the conscious awareness that the real you.the event identity then takes a back seat.

[uwot]

That sounds a bit like Descartes. When he said, 'I think, therefore I am.' He was saying that the thing that defined him was the thinking part. He could imagine all sorts of things about why he had thoughts and experiences, and he could imagine that all of it was wrong. Maybe he was being fooled, or maybe he was drugged; there are people today who think we may be living in a simulation, or that the universe is a holographic projection. So yes, our consciousness is there as a constant, and anything thing else could be true, but it is the things we see happen, the phenomena, that we have to negotiate and deal with, as if the things they apparently represent are real. Whatever the truth about the world, it's where we 'live'. The important thing, I think, is to do that well; all the fancy stuff about whether it's real or not comes a poor second.

[jackles]

yes the constant of consciousness makes the event seem unreal. when measuring c consciousness stands out as the stationary mover.and the event seems unreal as being moved by consciousness.we are some how joining the mover on knowing the speed of light is a constant.and its seems knowing this fact is a threshold in the evolution of humanity.